The fact is that the total system of climatre and weather is incredibly complex and not really understood as well as is needed. The reality is that much is not understood at all, while some things that are understood it may be that which is cause and which is effect is not really known. It is not that likely that correct results can be obtained using an incomplete model.

Besides all of that fact, there is still the unanswered question about changes in the sun's energy output, and the time lag between a small change and a measureable effect. And since it is quite unlikely that any records that go back very far show the solar enegry delivered to earth with enough accuracy to detect a change of 0.1%, which is all that it would take to produce some changes such as we see today. And the fact is that neither Bush nor Clinton can be blamed for any such changes in solar output. We know that there are sunspot cycles because we can see them and observe the effects. It seems likely that there are other cycles as well, but we don't know how to see them just yet. There are lots of unanswered questions.

And it is very likely that there could be 255 people with similar agendas, or more likely, about 20 with a serious agenda and a whole bunch that are just too apathetic to raise an argument with them. There are lots of apathetic people around, you know.

Do you think the thousands of real climate scientists (about 97% or more of them recognizing the reality and cause of climate change) and the 255 members of the National Academies of Science who submitted the essay to the Wall Street Journal on the realities of climate change are just "a collection of people who call themselves scientists," and not real or valid scientists?

Also, do you think science is a noble profession where honesty, ethics, and transparency are fundamental, or does it generally attract fear-mongers and political opportunists with hidden agendas?

And it seems that you are not aware of a fairly common propoganda trick of associating things not related.

The "them" was a collection of people who called themselves scientits, and they were writing in Scientific American, amongst other publications, about 30 years ago. They were somehow organized, but I did not pay much attention because back then it was more polite to just ignore the nuts spouting off. Theirs was an attitude shared by many of the vocal acedemic community, who were also quite loud on the topic.

And it seems that you are not aware of a fairly common propoganda trick of associating things not related.

One question that I have asked repeatedly is that aren't these people trumpeting so very loudly about the global climate change the same folks who for many years were very nasty in their criticism of the USA and other countries for having a standard of living that was so much higher than a lot of the rest of the world?

No, but I don't even remember "these people." Who were they? Climate scientists? Tell us about "them," if you think it's important to the topic.

Am I the only one who can recall the very btter diatribes about how evil Americans were because we lived so much better than many others?

Another non sequitur. I could ask for examples, but how would it be relevant to the science? Can't you debate climate science on its own terms, without ad hominem personal attacks? That's no way to win a debate. Are you even a scientist or engineer?!

Has anybody considered that they have finally found a way to attach something that was at least sort of believable to their assiertions that our standard of living and our level of personal freedom "must be brought into line with the rest of the world"?

Have you? If you're going to make ugly accusations, maybe you need to name names and we'll see who's really on both sides.

I am suggesting that a hidden personal agenda could be a real factor in the interpretation of the data. After all, every one of us knows that the interpretation of data can be subject to bias. That is nothing new.

So you're saying you can't dispute climate science other than to impugn the character and motives of climate scientists, and to conjure up any doubts, prejudice, and fears that you can possibly claw onto. That is nothing new.

Maybe you have a personal agenda due to your addiction to cheap polluting fossil fuels and due to irrational fears that you might have to change your lifestyle to something more responsible and sustainable. That is nothing new.

Maybe that's part of the hidden agenda of the 16 scientists who are not-so-distinguished in the specific field of climate science, but nonetheless got a climate science contrarian letter printed in a known denialist publication. That is nothing new.

One question that I have asked repeatedly is that aren't these people trumpeting so very loudly about the global climate change the same folks who for many years were very nasty in their criticism of the USA and other countries for having a standard of living that was so much higher than a lot of the rest of the world? Am I the only one who can recall the very btter diatribes about how evil Americans were because we lived so much better than many others? Has anybody considered that they have finally found a way to attach something that was at least sort of believable to their assiertions that our standard of living and our level of personal freedom "must be brought into line with the rest of the world"?

I am suggesting that a hidden personal agenda could be a real factor in the interpretation of the data. After all, every one of us knows that the interpretation of data can be subject to bias. That is nothing new.

UBM is actually worse than USA Today and other publications mentioned in the link I just posted in another comment (here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/10/16/usa_today_oped_giving_air_time_to_deniers.html). Those publications, as Fox News has even done, at least have posted views on "both sides," even if one side is dangersously false. I've never seen a post on UBM that points out, for example, that 255 even more distinguished scientists, actual climate scientists!, responded to this infamous letter published in the Wall Street Journal, but the WSJ wouldn't publish that response. UBM is in company with the denialist WSJ in this regard.

The most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal with respect to manmade climate change is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a scientifically accurate essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. The National Academy of Sciences is the nation's pre-eminent independent scientific organizations. Its members are among the most respected in the world in their fields. Yet the Journal wouldn't publish this letter. Instead they chose to publish an error-filled and misleading piece on climate because 16 so-called experts aligned with their bias signed it. This may be good politics for them, but it is bad science and it is bad for the nation.

A few weeks ago, Ford Motor Co. quietly announced that it was rolling out a new wrinkle to the powerful safety feature called stability control, adding even more lifesaving potential to a technology that has already been very successful.

It won't be too much longer and hardware design, as we used to know it, will be remembered alongside the slide rule and the Karnaugh map. You will need to move beyond those familiar bits and bytes into the new world of software centric design.

People who want to take advantage of solar energy in their homes no longer need to install a bolt-on solar-panel system atop their houses -- they can integrate solar-energy-harvesting shingles directing into an existing or new roof instead.

Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.